Tagging of new threads?

[Isadoorian]

This is totally a non-issue. It doesn't work like that. If I wanted to be a moderator, I would either need to be invited by the administration, or wait until a vacancy came up and then apply - not going to happen soon.

Exactly what I was trying to tell him

 

[Myrtonos]

@Progster I was, in fact, trying to ask if you would like to apply if a vacancy does come up.

 

[Progster]

@Progster I was, in fact, trying to ask if you would like to apply if a vacancy does come up.

I can't anwer this. It would depend on the nature of the position and the circumstances at the time, but probably not.

 

[Myrtonos]

I have noticed that some who have voted haven't commented, to those voters send me a private message if there is a reason for that. If you are open to emails from me, include your email address in your P.M.

 

[Bolletje]

I don't think we should be adding extra, non-essential steps to post creation. The forums should be as easy to use as possible.

 

[techteach]

I have noticed that some who have voted haven't commented, to those voters send me a private message if there is a reason for that. If you are open to emails from me, include your email address in your P.M.

In a very kind way I'd like to say
Someone said you seem kind of bossy. I agree.

 

[Isadoorian]

I have noticed that some who have voted haven't commented, to those voters send me a private message if there is a reason for that. If you are open to emails from me, include your email address in your P.M.

No ones obligated to say anything about why they voted what they did on a Threads Poll. And no where on the forums does it say they must include a reason for their vote in the comments. Leave them alone.

 

[Myrtonos]

No ones obligated to say anything about why they voted what they did on a Threads Poll. And no where on the forums does it say they must include a reason for their vote in the comments.

Sure but I want to encourage them to, some may have a reason not to comment, so I allow them to message me about it.

 

[Isadoorian]

Sure but I want to encourage them to, some may have a reason not to comment, so I allow them to message me about it.

If they don't want to say, they don't want to freaking say and it's not exactly your business to know anyways.

This will be my last reply as well since you're seemingly unable to wrap your head around anything of what I've said at all and I know you're going to continue being difficult to try and deal with if this goes on.

Have a good Afternoon/Evening

 

[tlc]

Not everybody gets the same thing out of a thread. Everybody sees things a little differently. To me, tags are totally useless. When I see tags, I see them as just a few random words in the thread, many of which I don't think apply any more than any other words. Many of us post something because we are confused and looking for direction. To try to predict the exact words that others are searching for seems pointless. So as the thread starts to develop good answers and winner posts, are the tags supposed to be modified to reflect that? After all, that can be more useful than the original post. People often search for answers, not always more questions.

I've never used tags and have no intention of ever doing so, nor do I think a moderator should have that responsibility. I think the search function does just fine. Just leave well enough alone.

 

[Kevin1968]

As others have said, adding tags is an additional step that some might find difficult.

 

[Myrtonos]

Kevin "As others have said, adding tags is an additional step that some might find difficult."


- Other have said that but it was introduced on another forum site for adults on the spectrum with no objections.

 

[Kevin1968]

Kevin - Other have said that but it was introduced on another forum site for adults on the spectrum with no objections.

Perhaps they have, but if I am creating a post I would have enough difficulty in explaining my point in the post without the additional stress of picking "tags" that may on their own not be relevant in my opinion.

I can understand the value of "tags" for photos, music and videos, but for text based posts the search engine would be able to find the words within the post anyway.

Just because it is something that other sites use it's no reason to introduce it here.

 

[Myrtonos]

Perhaps they have, but if I am creating a post I would have enough difficulty in explaining my point in the post without the additional stress of picking "tags" that may on their own not be relevant in my opinion.

Does that mean you would have that difficulty starting a thread on that other site because of the tag requirement? Remember, tags only need to be, and in fact, only can be, selected or created by the original poster and only when starting a thread on that other site, they are not required for every post.

Just because it is something that other sites use it's no reason to introduce it here.

I can't think of any reason against it here that does not exist on that other site.

 

[Progster]

Kevin - Other have said that but it was introduced on another forum site for adults on the spectrum with no objections.

That doesn't mean nobody objected, it just means nobody wrote their objections publically on the forum.

 

[tree]

Some people feel that having a set of rules to live by is a key to living a good life.
When there are voids (when a rule isn't established) a "rule follower" isn't happy.
So they hunt for a rule to apply, or make up one. A situation with *not
enough rules* will seem bad to them.

I, for one, believe that rules are useful.

However, I also believe that mandatory tagging of threads would be a silly and
redundant rule. If, and when, a thread starter decides to tag a thread is up to
the thread starter. Tags aren't an obligation.

 

[Myrtonos]

Some people feel that having a set of rules to live by is a key to living a good life.
When there are voids (when a rule isn't established) a "rule follower" isn't happy.
So they hunt for a rule to apply, or make up one. A situation with *not
enough rules* will seem bad to them.

They may also get other rules changed if they have a problem with them.

 

[Nitro]

You have 20 votes so far that don't think it should be mandatory or necessary, and three that think it's a non-issue.

I don't see anyone wanting to add another layer to posting except you, can we move along now?

 

[Pats]

Is it anything like when the government's computers search for keywords as a way of monitoring an entire population? I don't like that.
And I agree with @Isadoorian that the staff here does an excellent job at monitoring and keeping things peaceful and within the rules. Maybe using tags is a way for staff on other forums to become lazier in monitoring?

 

[Miss Chief]

- Other have said that but it was introduced on another forum site for adults on the spectrum with no objections.

That doesn't mean nobody objected, it just means nobody wrote their objections publically on the forum.

I don't recall us being asked on the other forum, I would have objected had I seen such a post, aside from anything else... it's annoying.

I also don't see the benefit of it, text is searchable both on the forum search and by search engines, the days of meta-tags are long gone.

Surely this is the point of the title of the thread, to state the topic (tags) of the thread, why have this additional layer.

Also being as it's a community forum it isn't unusual for a topic to evolve and morph into something else/more than it started as and then the tags aren't even applicable.

The other forum also only allows you to pick 2 or 3 words/phrases which isn't very broad, I spend more time trying to decide which tags to use than I do writing the whole damn post, it actually puts me off posting new threads, knowing I will have to come up with some tags, like I said it's annoying.